Current Events in November 2013

General Motors is recalling a more than 57,600 Chevrolet Malibu vehicles in two separate actions.

2014 models

In the first, about 42,696 model year 2014 vehicles manufactured June 12, 2013, through November 5, 2013, are being recalled.

The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) control in these vehicles may intermittently become inoperable when the vehicle is started, preventing the windshield defroster from working. The inability to turn on the windshield defroster may decrease the driver's visibility thereby increasing the risk of a crash.

GM will notify owners, and dealers will update the electronic climate control module software, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin December 6, 2013. The recall campaign number is 13380.

2013 vehicles

The second recall involves about 14,909 model year 2013 Malibus manufactured October 25, 2011, through June 29, 2012 and equipped with the 8-way power adjustable front seat feature.

The wiring harness for the power seat may contact the seat frame which may chafe the harness. If the harness is chaffed enough to expose the wires, a short circuit could occur, resulting unintended movement of the seat, the seat to become inoperative, sparking under the seat, flickering lights, smoke, or possibly a fire.

GM will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the wire harness and repair and secure it as necessary, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin in early December 2013. GM's recall campaign number is 13342.

Owners may contact GM at 1-800-521-7300 regarding either recall.

Hyundai America Technical Center is recalling 15,500 model year 2007-2008 Hyundai Entourage vehicles manufactured from February 16, 2006, through June 30, 2008 and sold in, or currently registered in, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

In the affected vehicles, the front lower control arms may fracture due to corrosion resulting from exposure to road salt and water. A fractured control arm can result in the loss of control of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.

Hyundai will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the degree of corrosion of the front lower control arms, and will either rustproof or replace them, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin in December 2013.

Owners may contact Hyundai at 1-800-633-5151 or by email at consumeraffairs@hmausa.com. Hyundai's recall number is 115.

Creminelli Fine Meats of Salt Lake City, Utah, is recalling 31 pieces (approximately 101 pounds) of fully-cooked-not-shelf-stable, ready-to-eat pork roast products.

The products were produced under the wrong Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan and mislabeled.

There have been no no reports of illness due to consumption of these products.

The following products are subject to recall:

3-4-lb. packages of “Creminelli Artisan Deli Porchetta Seasoned Boneless Pork Roast”

Each package bears the establishment number “34644” inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were sold exclusively through the Internet to 28 customers, who have been identified by the company, and delivered to customers between Oct. 15, 2013 and Nov. 15, 2013.

The products were NOT distributed to retail stores or restaurants, and other products produced by the company are not affected.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the company at (801) 428-1820 or info@creminelli.com.

Ford Motor Company is recalling 2,456 year 2012-2014 Focus Electric vehicles manufactured September 15, 2011, through August 23, 2013.

In the affected vehicles, a powertrain control module software problem may result in a stall-like condition. An unexpected loss of power while driving increases the risk of a crash.

Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the power control module, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin by late November 2013.

Owners may contact Ford Motor Company Customer Relationship Center at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's recall campaign number is 13S09.

After decades of inaction by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 45 states have taken the lead in beginning to clean up the scandalous and longstanding cell phone ripoffs that have cost consumers billions. 

The states have achieved a major breakthrough in the fight against "mobile cramming" — unauthorized third-party charges that appear on mobile telephone bills. Cramming on cell phones and landlines is estimated to cost Americans $2 billion per year.

AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile have agreed to stop passing on the charges, but Verizon Wireless is not a party to the agreement.

The problem was created by Congress when it passed the lobbyist-led Telecommunications Act of 1996 and included the provision that telephone carriers must pass on bills submitted by third-party providers. Everyone knew this was a wild and crazy invitation to scam artists but no one cared enough to do anything about it.

Too busy to help consumers

The FCC has been too busy helping telecom and cable companies divide up the spoils to worry about a little thing like consumers being wrongfully separated from their money.

“This is a victory for cell phone users in Washington and across the nation,” said Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson. “I am hopeful other phone carriers will follow this lead. My office will continue to work with other states for industry reforms and to recover money for consumers victimized by unauthorized mobile charges.”

As a result of the states' action, AT&T Mobility, Sprint and T-Mobile have agreed that they will no longer charge their customers for commercial Premium Short Messaging Services, also known as "PSMS," or "premium text messages."

PSMS is the platform that third-party content providers use to charge consumers via their cell phone bills. Examples of PSMS charges include those for horoscopes, weather information, dating advice, sports alerts, and similar services.

PSMS accounts for the majority of third-party charges on cell phones and for the overwhelming majority of cramming complaints. While PSMS has some benefits, like charitable giving, it is also a major contributor to the current mobile cramming problem.

Forty-five attorneys general led by Washington, Vermont, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Oregon, and Texas have been engaged in discussions aimed at stopping the practice of mobile cramming.

AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile are the second, third and fourth largest providers of mobile telephone services nationwide. AT&T and T-Mobile have confirmed they will continue to allow charitable donations to be billed via PSMS. Sprint was unable to confirm if they will do so at this time.

Verizon and numerous small carriers remain in the uncharted wilderness, exposing their customers to the third-party charges, which often go undetected and which can be difficult to dispute. 

Not every present we receive is something we really want. In fact, some can be downright bizarre. Increasingly those gifts end up being gifts given to someone else, a practice known as “re-gifting.”

While it might seem impolite to recycle a gift, the evidence suggests the practice is becoming mainstream. A survey by Ebates.com found that one-third of U.S. consumers re-gift during the holiday season. This year, 39% said they will give a gift they received to someone else.

The perfect re-gift

What makes the perfect re-gift? Respondents to the survey favor home décor items, gift cards, bottles of wine, books and perfume or cologne. The term “re-gifting,” by the way, is said to have originated in a 1990s episode of Seinfeld.

To find out if re-gifting is ever acceptable, we consulted etiquette guru, EmilyPost.com. We were surprised to find that it is, sort of.

“Gifts should be recycled only rarely, and only when the following criteria are met:

• You're certain that the gift is something the recipient would really like to receive.
• The gift is brand new (no cast-offs allowed) and comes with its original box and instructions.
• The gift isn't one that the original giver took great care to select or make.

Risky re-gifting

But re-gifting must be done carefully. It becomes risky when the original giver, original recipient and new recipient all know each other, as in the above Seinfeld clip. Ask yourself if it would be awkward if they all knew that you've recycled a gift from one to the other.

Re-gifts sometimes come in handy when you unexpectedly receive a gift from someone and feel you must reciprocate. In the Ebates survey, 50% of those questioned said they plan to have a “back up” gift at the ready for just such an occasion. Coincidentally, the top choices of “back up” gifts include a gift card, candy or snack, wine or champagne, a book, and home décor – many of which made the list of most popular re-gifts.

Celebrating re-gifting

There is even a website – regiftable.com – that celebrates the practice of re-gifting. The site, operated by the Money Management Institute (MMI), promotes re-gifting as a way to be frugal and practical during the holiday season. But it cautions that not all gifts are re-giftable.

“Never re-gift handmade or one-of-a-kind items,” the site advises. “Signed books and monogrammed items are off-limits. Do you have to be told not to re-gift free promotional items? Some gifts that are good candidates for re-gifting include good (unopened!) bottles of wine, new household items and inexpensive jewelry.”

Should you ever re-gift to your spouse or significant other? It's probably a very risky move, though the Ebates survey suggests it might be tempting.

The survey found consumers – 30% of women and 23% of men -- have the hardest time buying for their significant others. The survey found that trend remained consistent regardless of whether the couple had children, but became increasingly difficult as their incomes rose.

So if you open a nicely wrapped gift this holiday season and find a home décor item, gift card, bottle of wine, a book or perfume or cologne, you might have been re-gifted.

Government. All too often, it doesn't do what people want it to do, instead spending the people's time and money doing things people either don't care about or actively don't want.

No, we're not talking about Obamacare, although that might be a case in point, depending on your outlook. We're talking -- for now, at least -- about the Federal Communications Commission, an agency that has a long and well-deserved reputation for slavishly bowing to the needs of the telecom, cable and broadcasting companies it regulates while losing sight of the needs of everyday taxpayers.

Case in point: cramming. But don't get us started. The latest episode in that long and sordid tale is covered in a separate story today, one chronicling how states took matters into their own hands after waiting more than a decade for the feds to do something about cellphone cramming.

Now the latest buzz in telecom circles is that new FCC Chairman and former cable lobbyist Tom Wheeler wants to redo the nation's telephone network, converting it basically to Internet telephony. No one is taking to the streets to demand this, although the telephone companies would certainly like to sell everyone broadband and stop maintaining their copper-based telephone networks.

In the Washington, D.C., suburbs, the copper network is in such bad shape that police have been pounding on the wrong doors in the middle of the night, as the 9-1-1 system sends them to the wrong address, according to local news reports.

But never mind that. The FCC has taken up a new cause -- cellphones on airliners. The agency says it will soon propose allowing passengers to use their phones once flights reach cruising altitude, something nearly no one wants and several airlines already say they won't allow.

Last month, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) struck a similar blow for freedom, allowing the use of laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc. in flight as long as no talking was involved. 

Talk it up

The FCC basically says there's no technical or safety reason to prohibit the calls. That may well be true, although the airlines would have to install equipment that would enable on-board cellphones to make contact with cell towers on the ground. 

Actually, some engineers will tell you that cellphones work just fine in flight right now but have a tendency to "suck up" available bandwidth from ground stations. Equipment installed on airplanes would likely throttle down air-to-ground communications to a more reasonable level, these telecom engineers say. They asked not to be identified because their employers would object to their discussing the matter.

The FCC says it is carrying out the will of the people.  It cited a survey of 1,600 U.S. adults that showed 51% opposed allowing in-flight calls while 47% thought it was a good idea. Hmmm ... maybe the FCC needs to look at those numbers again.

Whatever happens at the FCC, Southwest, Virgin America and Delta all say they don't plan to allow in-flight phone calls, citing overwhelming sentiment against it.

Those travelers who are somewhat long in the tooth may recall the days when airliners had smoking and no-smoking sections, which was kind of silly since smoke tends to drift, but it was widely accepted and strictly enforced.

Perhaps what will end up happening if the FCC liberates airborne cellphones is something similar. It's pretty easy to imagine the airlines -- which now put a price on everything -- charging an extra $20 or so for seats in the no-yakking section. Amtrak has quiet cars, after all, why can't United?

Of course, if there's going to be a Quiet Class, it would have to bar babies and anyone else likely to start yelling, crying loudly or uttering indecipherable grunts. Which would probably include most of us, at least now and then.

An Atlanta-based company and its operators are settling Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allegations that they crammed charges on consumers’ cell phone bills without their consent to the tune of $10 million.

Two settlements with Wise Media and its CEO, Brian M. Buckley, and Winston J. Deloney, permanently ban them from placing any charges on consumers’ telephone bills or assisting anyone else in doing so. They also are prohibited from using any other method to charge consumers for goods or services without ensuring that they are aware of the terms of the purchase and have expressly agreed to be charged.

“This case involved a new delivery system for an old-fashioned scam,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Getting consumers’ consent before charging them is as basic a consumer protection as you’ll find, whether you’re dealing with a brick and mortar store or with a mobile payment provider.”

'Premium services' charge

The FTC’s complaint alleged that Wise Media billed consumers for so-called “premium services” that sent text messages with horoscopes, flirting and love tips and other information. It also claims consumers across the country were signed up for these services, and that the operation placed repeating charges of $9.99 per month on mobile phone bills, without consumers’ knowledge or permission.

The settlement with Wise Media and Buckley includes a judgment of $10,965,638, which is partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay the full amount. Buckley will be required to surrender nearly all of his assets along with any remaining assets of Wise Media, valued in excess of $500,000.

The settlement with Deloney and Concrete Marketing Research, LLC, a relief defendant charged with receiving ill-gotten gains from the unlawful conduct, requires them to pay $175,817.  

Consumer Reports and Tesla owners think the Tesla S electric luxury sports sedan is great. But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is sounding a little peeved about Tesla's incessant self-promotion.

Consumer Reports recently gave the car its highest-ever rating and, just yesterday, said the Tesla S had achieved the highest customer satisfaction rating -- 99 out of 100 -- any car has achieved in recent memory. OK, probably it's the highest rating ever but nobody wants to come out and say so.

Meanwhile, NHTSA has opened a preliminary inquiry into a couple of fires that occurred when two of the $90,000 cars hit debris in the roadway and burst into flames.

NHTSA's nose is also out of joint over Tesla's claim that it is the safest car ever. The company has been claiming that it achieved a 5.4-star safety rating in NHTSA's collision tests. NHTSA sternly replied that its ratings only go up to 5 -- so a 5.4 rating is impossible.

Guidelines updated

Just to make sure Tesla gets the point, NHTSA has updated its guidelines to explicit bar companies from promoting safety scores higher than 5 stars. The guidelines also state that safety scores are always whole numbers. 

"Tesla's claim was an example of the potential confusion and inaccuracy that could be caused by incorrect use of the 5-Star ratings information in advertising and marketing statements," NHTSA said in a statement. 

"Advertisers who claim more than 5 stars are misleading the public," NHTSA said, warning that violations could lead to sanctions.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, for once, declined to comment. The 5-star safety rating system has been used by NHTSA since model-year 1994 vehicles and the agency does not issue scores above that threshold.

Musk, has generated almost as much heat as the car fires with his over-the-top claims and his aggressive response to NHTSA's inquiry, leading some to wonder whether he is trying to be the next Donald Trump of the automotive industry.

Some of Musk's less cautious rants have bordered on being untruthful. Earlier this week he claimed in a log post that Tesla had asked NHTSA to investigate the fires, a claim NHTSA flatly denied.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is announcing a recall to provide cord covers for 600,000 Angelcare Movement and Sound Monitors with Sensor Pads.

The cord attached to the baby monitor’s sensor pad is placed under the crib mattress, which poses a strangulation risk if the child pulls the cord into the crib and it becomes wrapped around the neck.

Angelcare and CPSC have received reports of two infant cord strangulation deaths. In November 2011, a 13-month-old girl died in San Diego, California, and, in August 2004, an 8-month-old girl died in Salem, Oregon. In both fatalities, the cord from the sensor pads was pulled into the crib by the infant.

In addition, there have been two reports of infants who became entangled in cords of Angelcare baby monitor models, which did not result in fatalities. In these incidents, it could not be determined if the “sensor pad cord” or the “monitor cord” was involved in the incident.

The recall involves the Movement and Sound Monitor manufactured by Angelcare. This design of baby monitor includes a unique sensor pad placed inside the crib, under the mattress, to monitor movement of the baby. An electrical cord about 11 feet long is permanently connected from the sensor pad to the nursery monitor unit.

The hazard is created by a cord within reach of a baby inside the crib. The cord can be pulled into the crib and can wrap around the child’s neck. The recall involves all versions of Angelcare sensor monitors including model numbers: AC1100, AC201, AC300, AC401 AC601 and 49255 that did not include rigid cord covers, offered in the remedy. The model number is located on the back of the nursery monitor unit. The monitors were manufactured between 1999 and 2013.

Angelcare is providing consumers with a repair kit that includes rigid protective cord covers through which the sensor pad cords can be threaded, a new, permanent electric cord warning label about the strangulation risk, and revised instructions.

The recalled baby monitors were sold at Babies R Us/Toys R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Meijer, Sears, Walmart, Amazon.com, Target.com, Overstock.com, and nearly 70 small baby specialty stores, from October 1999, through September 2013, for about $100to $300.

Consumers should immediately make sure cords are placed out of reach of the child.

Consumers may contact Angelcare toll-free at (855)355-2643 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.

With the arrival of the holiday season who has time to go looking for a house? For that reason there aren't many buyers this time of year.

But there should be, because that's when you may find some incredible deals.

It's understandable that owner-occupants aren't eager to buy a house at this time of year. There are too many other distractions and besides, who wants to move in January?

But for investors, it's an entirely different matter. Joy Bender, a real estate agent in San Diego, Calif., says investors who sit on the sidelines in December may be passing up a profitable opportunity.

Motivated sellers

"A seller who is actively showing their property during the holidays is more motivated to sell than a seller merely testing the highs of the market," Bender said.

For example, in her market Bender says there are some builders offering unusual discounts on current phases of move in ready models in an effort to clear inventory off the books. Some sellers may be motivated for tax reasons.

“Sellers may be motivated to strategically close escrow by the end of 2013 for tax advantageous planning within regards to capital gains,” Bender said. “Buyers can also anticipate possible tax deductions for 2013 with pre-paid mortgage interest along with origination and discount points paid on closing costs.”

Buyers regaining some leverage

In some markets in the country in recent months sellers have been in the driver's seat. Inventories have been low and buying interest high. For that reason an investor seeking to buy a house well below market has often been frustrated lately. But Bender says that's changing.

"We've seen a significant shift in overall demand eliminating some of the multiple offer situations we have been struggling with all year," she said. "There has been a dramatic decrease in buyer activity especially in the high end and vacation home market."

Recent data backs that up. Sales of existing homes declined in September and October, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). Only a further tightening of inventories prevented overall prices from falling. The median price rose 12% year-over-year, dampening investor enthusiasm.

Cash talks

But Bender thinks the end of 2013 might provide investors with an opportunity, especially if they can make a cash offer. A seller pressured by a deadline may be inclined to accept a lower offer if it is cash, since there is little chance the deal will fall through.

The biggest downside to end-of-the-year home buying is the limited inventory. It may be hard to find a home that meets your needs. But that's only the case if you plan to live in the house.

An investor is looking at it in a completely different way. They either plan to flip it or convert it to rental property. The color of the tile in the bathroom isn't a deal-breaker.

If our distant ancestors could see us now they’d be flabbergasted and frustrated by how we managed to take a biological process as simple and basic as eating and turn it into an overcomplicated overanalyzed mess.

Granted, our modern world does contain some culinary complications our ancestors never had to handle: their primary food-related health problems mostly involved malnutrition and famine, whereas ours center around too much access to too many temptingly fattening foods.

Even so, we confess to a bit of head-shaking when we read this press release from Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, about another eating-habits research study. The press release had the headline “Political correctness could affect holiday weight gain.”

In the context of the article, it’s obvious that “political correctness” here actually means “being hyper-vigilant against the possibility of offending someone due to their weight.” Indeed, the actual research study doesn’t mention political correctness at all, but instead has the title Matching Choices to Avoid Offending Stigmatized Group Members.

The gist of the research seems to be that, when people are asked to select food both for themselves and for others, and are given a choice between healthy or unhealthy food options (wheat crackers or chocolate-chip cookies, respectively), those choices are likely to change based on whether the various people are overweight or of normal weight.

As the press release says:

… in similar, additional studies, participants told researchers they thought it would be offensive either to give an overweight person healthy food and then take unhealthy food for themselves or, conversely, to give an overweight person unhealthy food and then take healthy food for themselves.

"This suggests that if you are heading back to the buffet to cut a piece of pumpkin pie for your overweight uncle, you might also cut a larger piece than normal for yourself, so you don't hurt his feelings," [researcher Peggy] Liu said.

We must be doing buffets and dinner parties wrong; in buffet situations we only select food for children too young to do so themselves, and at parties we always let our guests pretty much choose what they want from whatever options we’ve made available. That said, we do indeed think it would be offensive if we not only abandoned this practice, but made a point of serving delicious cookies to our skinny guests and whole-wheat crackers to the plump ones.

Despite this, the study does make some potentially good points regarding how your own personal food choices could be affected by what others are eating—such as eating more pie than you intended so your uncle’s serving looks smaller. It might be hard to avoid overthinking such matters, because when you get right down to it, we’re evolutionarily hard-wired to have a bit of a Goldilocks fetish where food is concerned—especially fat, sugar and salt, which collectively bear the bulk of the blame for modern obesity problems.

Because our bodies need all of these things to survive and be healthy: eat too little, you can get sick or even die. Eat too much, and you can also get sick or even die. Only when everything’s Just Right do you feel just right too, and we’d tell you how to eat Just Right according to the latest nutritional scientific consensus, but new research will probably make our advice obsolete by next week, so we’ll keep eating according to our old rule: A little bit of everything, but not too much of anything. (Except maybe at a Thanksgiving feast.)

You might think that heavy drinking would be bad for a marriage -- and you'd be right if only one person was doing the drinking. But a new study finds that if both couples drink, the divorce rate is the same as for other couples.

Researchers at the University at Buffalo Research Institute on Addictions (RIA) followed 634 couples from the time of their weddings through the first nine years of marriage and found that couples where only one spouse was a heavy drinker had a much higher divorce rate than other couples.

But if both spouses were heavy drinkers? The divorce rate was the same as for couples where neither were heavy drinkers.

“Our results indicate that it is the difference between the couple’s drinking habits, rather than the drinking itself, that leads to marital dissatisfaction, separation and divorce,” said Kenneth Leonard, PhD, RIA director and lead author of the study.

The study’s co-authors were Gregory Homish, PhD, and Philip Smith, PhD, of UB’s Department of Community Health and Health Behavior.

Over the course of the nine-year study, nearly 50 percent of couples where only one partner drank more heavily wound up divorcing, while the divorce rates for other couples was only 30 percent. (“Heavy drinking” was defined as drinking six or more drinks at one time or drinking to intoxication.)

“This research provides solid evidence to bolster the commonplace notion that heavy drinking by one partner can lead to divorce,” Leonard said. “Although some people might think that’s a likely outcome, there was surprisingly little data to back up that claim until now.”

Surprising outcome

“Ultimately, we hope our findings will be helpful to marriage therapists and mental health practitioners who can explore whether a difference in drinking habits is causing conflicts between couples seeking help,” Leonard said.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the findings will appear in the December issue of Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

The Chief of Police hand-delivered the world’s first retail license to sell marijuana to Annie’s Central City Dispensaryin Colorado yesterday, a historic occasion in a historic old gold-mining town. 

Though sales to adults 21 and over won’t begin until the first of the year, businesses have already started applying for the licenses, which are expected to bring in close to $67 million in revenue for the state each year.

“Cannabis is one of the fastest-growing industries,” Steve Berg, former managing director of Wells Fargo Bank and editor of a report titled the state of Legal Marijuana Markets, told the Huffington Post. “Domestically, we weren’t able to find any market that is growing as quickly.”

Currently operating medical marijuana dispensaries have been given a three-month head start on other businesses applying for the licenses, though some cities, including Denver, have extended the lead time for current dispensaries to a year or more.

The state’s Marijuana Enforcement Division has accepted 136 applications from recreational marijuana stores so far. Another 400 are eligible to apply, though the state has said only establishments in “good standing” will be accepted. 

“This is a historic occasion, and at each milestone I am reminded of what we have achieved here,” said Major Neill Franklin (Ret.), a former police officer and current head of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of law enforcement officials opposed to the war on drugs. “The legalization of marijuana is good for law enforcement, good for families, good for our communities. The voters of Colorado and Washington are leading the way down a path that soon the rest of the nation will follow.”

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is a group of police, prosecutors, judges and other law enforcement officials who, after fighting on the front lines of the war on drugs, now advocate for its end. #

You’ve probably noticed the economic controversy raging in America these past few years. On the one side you have people complaining “Though American productivity keeps rising American wages keep falling, especially at the lower ends of the spectrum, and something ought to be done about that.” On the other side is the counterargument “If people make low wages it’s because their job skills aren’t very valuable, so they should do something to qualify for a better gig.”

And if we were wont to believe in conspiracy theories, we’d swear that corporations like Walmart and McDonald’s have recently been taken over by secret agents working for the “wages are too low” side, and their mission is “Learn all we can about Ebenezer Scrooge and Scrooge McDuck, then figure out ways to make our companies look worse.”

Earlier this week we told you about the Walmart in Ohio that asked its employees to contribute to a canned-food drive for the benefit of other Walmart employees who can’t afford to feed themselves. Members of a Walmart workers’ organization said the canned food drive underscores the need for Walmart to pay higher wages; a Walmart spokesman countered than the food drive demonstrates how much Walmart employees care for each other.

Budgeting tips

In all fairness, the Walmart food drive was an individual store manager’s prerogative, not a corporate-wide policy. The same cannot be said for the facepalm-inducing McDonald’s employee webpage uncovered this week by LowPayIsNotOK.org. McDonald’s offered its employees such useful household-budgeting tips as “You may also want to consider returning some of your unopened [holiday gift] purchases that may not seem as appealing as they did. Selling some of your unwanted possessions on eBay or Craigslist could bring in some quick cash” and “At least two vacations a year can cut heart attack risk by 50 percent."

Perhaps the McDonald’s employees can pay for their stress-reducing twice-yearly vacations with the money they make selling unopened holiday gifts? And remember another helpful stress-reduction tip their website offered: “Quit Complaining: Stress hormone levels rise by 15 percent after ten minutes of complaining.” If you think making a living on low pay is stressful, that’s nothing compared to the stress of complaining about it.

This isn’t the first time McDonald’s made headlines this year for giving callously clueless budgeting tips to its employees. Last July, bloggers for Slate and ThinkProgress uncovered a sample budget that McDonald’s had made available to its employees from 2010 until bloggers told everybody about it. The budget shows how easy McDonald’s thinks it is for its employees to manage household expenses: first, assume the average McDonald’s employee works two jobs for a net monthly income of $2,060, then spends $20 a month on health insurance, nothing on heat and nothing on food — (though food might fall into the “Other” category, for which the sample budget allows $100 per month).

If you want to spend nothing on heat and $20 a month on health insurance, your best bet is to live in southern California—circa 1947 or so. But neither last summer’s McDonald’s budget nor its current employee financial tips include instructions on how to build a working time machine. It does, however, offer this tip for hungry employees seeking to stretch their food budgets further: “Breaking food into pieces often results in eating less and still feeling full.”

As consumer journalists dedicated to helping our readers get the most out of their money, we hope you find these suggestions helpful. We rather doubt it, though.

ElliptiGO of Solana Beach, Calif., is recalling about 7,200 ElliptiGO outdoor elliptical cycles in the U.S and Canada.

The front fork on the cycles can separate and the drive arm axles can detach during use, posing a fall hazard. The company has received one report of the fork separating and ten reports of the drive arm detaching. One injury consisting of a minor abrasions caused by a drive arm detaching has been reported.

The ElliptiGO 3C, 8C and 11R models are outdoor elliptical cycles used by adults for exercise. It is a scooter-like device that combines an elliptical trainer with a bicycle. The ElliptiGO cycles have an aluminum frame, drive arms, two 20” spoked-wheels, an internally geared hub, front and rear brakes and adjustable-height steering column. All cycles have the word “ElliptiGO” along the outside of the frame. The 3C and 8C model cycles have a “C-Series” decal towards the rear of the frame and aluminum drive arms. The recalled 11R cycles are matte black with white markings and the “11R” decal is found towards the rear of the frame. The serial numbers on all models are located on the frame in front of the back wheel near where the kickstand attaches to the frame. Serial number ranges for the recalled 3C and 8C models are from 11-010-001 through 13-028-102, and for the 11R model from 12-003-069 through 12-020-035.

The cycles, manufactured in Taiwan, were sold at ElliptiGO Inc. online at elliptigo.com and through various specialty bicycle and specialty fitness retailers nationwide from April 2011, through October 2013, for about $1,800 to $3,500.

Consumers should stop using recalled ElliptiGO cycles until they have the fork upgraded with a safety retrofit and/or upgraded replacement drive arm axles installed.

Consumers may contact ElliptiGO toll-free at (888) 551-0117 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or at www.elliptigo.com/safety to locate the authorized repair center closest to them.

Tendex is recalling Lot# F51Q of P-Boost and Lot # F51Q of NatuRECT.

FDA laboratory analysis on the product, which the firm also labels as NatuRECT, has determined that it contains undeclared tadalafil, an active ingredient of FDA-approved drugs used to treat erectile dysfunction (ED), making them unapproved drugs.

The products are labeled and intended to be used as dietary supplements for sexual enhancement and are packaged in 1 capsule blister packs and 5, 10, 20, 40 capsule bottles. Both products are distributed nationwide to wholesale and retail customers and via the internet.

Consumers who have product which is being recalled should stop using them and return them to place of purchase.

Consumers with questions may contact Tendex at (800) 984-0341, from Monday to Friday, 9:00AM-5PM, PST.

There has been no let-up in retailers' push to launch their Black Friday deals ahead of the big day itself. Yes, these stores hope you still line up at the crack of dawn the day after Thanksgiving to fight over door-buster specials, but you really don't have to.

Walmart has been among the most aggressive, vowing to match any Black Friday price from its competitors. In the meantime, it continues to offer some pretty compelling online deals right now.

For example, Walmart.com is selling a seven-inch Nextbook tablet with 8GB of memory with Google Mobile Services for $59. An RCA seven-inch tablet with 4GB of memory is $49.

Laptop bundle

The site is also currently offering a laptop bundle package, including your choice of an Asus, HP or Gateway computer, a carrying case, a printer and a USB flash drive for $299.

Flatscreen TVs are always a big Black Friday draw but you can get a deal right now, online. Walmart is offering a Sceptre 40" Class LCD 1080p 60Hz HDTV for $259. A 32” RCA 1080p 60Hz Class LED (3.1" ultra-slim) HDTV is $229.

Sears has a 100-piece Craftsman drill accessory kit for $14.99 when you order online. You can pick it up free at a nearby Sears store.

Tells time and calories burned

Best Buy is currently offering a Timex Unisex Health and Fitness Personal Trainer analog watch for $19.99 when ordered online. it comes with free shipping and spits out a variety of health-related data, including calories burned.

For the gamer on your list, Green Man Gaming is selling Call of Duty: Ghosts for $42.99. That's down from $59.99 and requires a free steam account to play.

In the toy department, Kohls is currently offering the Monster High Draculaura Doll & Jewelry Box Coffin Set by Mattel for $36.99. The regular price is $49.99. It also has the VTech KidiJamz Studio for $49.99.

Mobile advertising

While retailers this year are using the web like never before to spur pre-holiday sales, they haven't given up on trying to draw you into their brick and mortar space. But instead of relying on traditional advertising, more merchants are going mobile.

A survey conducted by fashion shopping app Snapette found that women, especially, are responsive to mobile alerts detailing discounts and more likely than men to shop in-store to save on shipping costs.

"Women tend to be more regularly engaged in shopping related activities, such as searching out deals, subscribing to promotional newsletters, following specific designers on social media, thus may rely less on targeted research immediately prior to making a purchase," said Sarah Paiji, co-founder and President of Snapette.

Mobile ad spending is up a reported 81 percent this year.

One of the nastiest facts of Internet life is this: once you put your name, image or writings out there, you can’t really control what happens to them next. There’s countless horror stories of people who (for example) set up a perfectly innocuous profile someplace, then found their photo, name and other details appearing in advertisements or profiles with companies they never even knew existed.

We heard just such a story this week, from Anna S. in Minnesota.

I have a plentyoffish.com profile, which is a nonsexual dating website. I was bored one day and decided to Google the screen name I use on my profile for plentyoffish.com. I had noticed that a website appeared as citysex.com had my same user name, location, picture, age and etc listed there. I've made every attempt to contact them and have gotten nowhere. I feel embarrassment and guilt knowing someone my friends, family, or anyone that googles my user name is shown citysex.com. I'm extremely depressed knowing that millions of people I don't know are seeing my picture and information, thinking I want to meet for sex.

Uh-oh. We visited Citysex.com, which promises to help us “Find your perfect match & GET LAID TONIGHT!” It also claims that the small, obscure and downright boring suburban town where we live is populated by an implausibly high number of young-adult supermodel clones, all looking to have either a “discreet affair,” a “kinky relationship” or “group sex.” With us. Tonight. Because, despite looking like supermodels, these people supposedly can’t find a date without the assistance of a skeevy-looking sex site.

Our plan was to find the Citysex.com “Contact us” feature, then write to ask them how somebody like Anna could take down a fake profile. What we discovered is that Citysex.com is based in Cyprus. Its “privacy policy” basically boils down to “Once you register with us, we can do pretty much whatever we want with your profile.” But what about people who never registered with them in the first place?

The closest we could find was this:

"OPT-OUT" - REVOCATION OF CONSENT PROCEDURE

The Site also offers all Members and Users a procedure for 'Opting-Out' if the Member or User subsequently chooses to revoke or withdraw any consent to receive Offers by sending an e-mail from the email address you wish to opt out to "cs@citysex.com" clearly stating the email address in the body of the email and that the Member or User has revoked or withdrawn consent to receive any future Offers from Site to such email address.

This doesn’t bode well for Anna. Suppose, for example, we decided to use our email address to set up a fake Citysex profile for you, and then you learn of this and try taking your fake profile down — if we’re reading this Citysex agreement correctly, there’s nothing you can do because your fake profile will only go away if the takedown request is sent from our email address.

Not too encouraging

Hoping to be proven wrong, we did send a message to that Citysex email address, giving them Anna’s details and asking how she can get “her” profile taken down; we also gave this information to Anna herself. But, frankly, we’ll be very surprised if anything comes of it — especially in light of what we found when we did an online search for “Citysex.com” and “scam.”

Scambook.com has been collecting Citysex complaints since February 2012. Most of the complaints involved unapproved credit card charges – “I signed up for one month membership, they charged me for three” or “they advertised ‘free to join’ … then came an unauthorized charge on my credit card.” But men also complained that the women in the profiles were fake: “none of the girls are real, they are paid models. As soon as I ask one I was chatting with I found out real quick she doesn’t know anything about the town I live in, population 200. I ask her to meet me at the diner and she said which one. We don't have one just a single red light..she finally slipped and said she lived in LA.”

Citysex also came up on a Yahoo answers board; a man posted a question about a scammy come-on he received, allegedly from a beautiful woman sending “friend” requests to random men on Facebook. Two weeks before our search, someone else reported getting similarly scammy Facebook requests: “I actually have this [girl] trying to do this. Same site and is wanting me to go to a redirecting site just to get to CitySex. I kept asking what the name of the site was and she was playing dumb.”

Citysex.com also came up on the Dating Judge website (which is not safe to click on at work or around children, due to some sexually explicit images); Datingjudge.com apparently judges sex-and-dating sites for their trustworthiness, and tagged Citysex.com in many of its scam-alert postings. Citysex.com also got a “Trust Score” of zero percent on Scamadviser.com (which lists it as a US-based site, rather than Cypriot),  and multiple people at PissedConsumer.com warn that “City sex is a scam.”

So if you are a man looking to meet a sexy woman, we can definitely tell you you’ll meet no such women through Citysex.com. But if you’re a woman horrified to learn that Citysex is using your name and image to reel in gullible men — unfortunately, we have no idea what you can do, other than perhaps showing your friends and family this article, should any of them be foolish enough to think you actually posted a come-hither profile on Citysex.com.